Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Sep 17;2(5):e000428.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000428.

Randomized trial of conventional transseptal needle versus radiofrequency energy needle puncture for left atrial access (the TRAVERSE-LA study)

Jonathan C Hsu  1 , Nitish Badhwar, Edward P Gerstenfeld, Randall J Lee, Mala C Mandyam, Thomas A Dewland, Kourtney E Imburgia, Kurt S Hoffmayer, Vasanth Vedantham, Byron K Lee, Zian H Tseng, Melvin M Scheinman, Jeffrey E Olgin, Gregory M Marcus
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized trial of conventional transseptal needle versus radiofrequency energy needle puncture for left atrial access (the TRAVERSE-LA study)

Jonathan C Hsu et al. J Am Heart Assoc. .

Abstract

Background: Transseptal puncture is a critical step in achieving left atrial (LA) access for a variety of cardiac procedures. Although the mechanical Brockenbrough needle has historically been used for this procedure, a needle employing radiofrequency (RF) energy has more recently been approved for clinical use. We sought to investigate the comparative effectiveness of an RF versus conventional needle for transseptal LA access.

Methods and results: In this prospective, single-blinded, controlled trial, 72 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to an RF versus conventional (BRK-1) transseptal needle. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was time required for transseptal LA access. Secondary outcomes included failure of the assigned needle, visible plastic dilator shavings from needle introduction, and any procedural complication. The median transseptal puncture time was 68% shorter using the RF needle compared with the conventional needle (2.3 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 1.7 to 3.8 minutes] versus 7.3 minutes [IQR, 2.7 to 14.1 minutes], P = 0.005). Failure to achieve transseptal LA access with the assigned needle was less common using the RF versus conventional needle (0/36 [0%] versus 10/36 [27.8%], P < 0.001). Plastic shavings were grossly visible after needle advancement through the dilator and sheath in 0 (0%) RF needle cases and 12 (33.3%) conventional needle cases (P < 0.001). There were no differences in procedural complications (1/36 [2.8%] versus 1/36 [2.8%]).

Conclusions: Use of an RF needle resulted in shorter time to transseptal LA access, less failure in achieving transseptal LA access, and fewer visible plastic shavings.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01209260.

Keywords: Brockenbrough needle; comparative effectiveness; left atrial access; radiofrequency energy needle; randomized controlled trial; transseptal puncture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Subject flow in the study. *Patients available for analysis of the primary outcome of time of first transseptal puncture. There were no patients excluded from the analysis. RF indicates radiofrequency.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Total transseptal puncture procedure time by assigned transseptal needle. Box plots show the median (white line) and interquartile range (from top to bottom of the box plot). Each whisker represents the most extreme value within 1.5 times the interquartile range. Outlier values are not shown. Times are inclusive of crossover time.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Pictured is an example of grossly visible particles that were produced after the introduction of a conventional needle through the dilator and long sheath. The particles are placed on conventional electrocardiography paper as a size reference.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Calkins H, Kuck KH, Cappato R, Brugada J, Camm AJ, Chen SA, Crijns HJ, Damiano RJ, Jr, Davies DW, DiMarco J, Edgerton J, Ellenbogen K, Ezekowitz MD, Haines DE, Haissaguerre M, Hindricks G, Iesaka Y, Jackman W, Jalife J, Jais P, Kalman J, Keane D, Kim YH, Kirchhof P, Klein G, Kottkamp H, Kumagai K, Lindsay BD, Mansour M, Marchlinski FE, McCarthy PM, Mont JL, Morady F, Nademanee K, Nakagawa H, Natale A, Nattel S, Packer DL, Pappone C, Prystowsky E, Raviele A, Reddy V, Ruskin JN, Shemin RJ, Tsao HM, Wilber D. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow‐up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2012; 33:171-257 - PubMed
    1. Lesh MD, Van Hare GF, Scheinman MM, Ports TA, Epstein LA. Comparison of the retrograde and transseptal methods for ablation of left free wall accessory pathways. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993; 22:542-549 - PubMed
    1. Pluta S, Lenarczyk R, Pruszkowska‐Skrzep P, Kowalski O, Sokal A, Sredniawa B, Mazurek M, Kalarus Z. Transseptal versus transaortic approach for radiofrequency ablation in patients with cardioverter‐defibrillator and electrical storm. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2010; 28:45-50 - PubMed
    1. Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, Doshi SK, Sievert H, Buchbinder M, Mullin CM, Sick P. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non‐inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009; 374:534-542 - PubMed
    1. Bartus K, Han FT, Bednarek J, Myc J, Kapelak B, Sadowski J, Lelakowski J, Bartus S, Yakubov SJ, Lee RJ. Percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation using the lariat device in patients with atrial fibrillation: initial clinical experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62:108-118 - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data